States are moving on accessibility but struggling, say digital officers

Many states have made progress on building out digital accessibility programs, but most still struggle with statewide implementation due to staffing, authority and funding challenges, according to a survey published Thursday by the National Association of State Chief Information Officers.

NASCIO’s Inaugural State Accessibility Officer survey was conducted over the summer with 36 of 40 known state digital accessibility officers. It found that although the Department of Justice in April extended by one year a deadline for states and large local governments to meet the new web accessibility standards, they are sometimes struggling to implement changes.

Pressure from the looming accessibility compliance requirements for government websites and apps has given more prominence to state accessibility leaders, but the NASCIO survey points out a gap between states having having an accessibility policy and actually having the resources to implement one.

While accessibility leadership is becoming a more permanent part of state government — NASCIO found that at least 40 of its 56 member states and territories have a state digital accessibility lead — the survey also found that the majority struggle with making accessibility a fully resourced, enterprise-wide function.

Part of the struggle is that a majority of accessibility leads lack any real authority over compliance within state government. Only 17% of the responding state digital accessibility leads said they had accessibility oversight authority across all state agencies. Thirty-one percent said they were limited to oversight of the executive branch. Twenty-three percent said they had no formal authority for enforcing compliance, and more than half said they didn’t have a team reporting to them.

Among officials with accessibility teams, 80% have teams of fewer than 10 people, the survey found. It also noted that there are unique challenges for those accessibility leads working in organizations with federated IT, a governance structure that can create both flexibility and inconsistency as agencies operate somewhat independently.

When asked about their top three challenges, accessibility officers most frequently named lack of funding, lack of authority and lack of understanding among state personnel. Sixty-seven percent of state leads reported not having a dedicated digital accessibility budget; among the 33% that do, funding primarily comes through appropriations or chargebacks, rather than consistent funding streams.

The survey also found that most states considered themselves either partially or mostly compliant with the 2024 DOJ Final Rule; only two respondents reported minimal compliance or noncompliance. But states struggle most with labor-intensive processes, such as document remediation, high-traffic system remediation, expanded accessibility testing, identifying exceptions to the rule and then establishing remediation workflows.

The states that responded to the survey said they are doing better on foundational accessibility work, such as having an accessibility policy or establishing accessibility procurement requirements. But 69% said they don’t have the resources or staff to remediate all state websites and apps by next April.

And though NASCIO’s survey identifies that the three biggest drivers of accessibility work are legal compliance, risk mitigation and leadership expectations, it also notes that states need to move toward a fourth, broader framing: accessibility as part of the government’s fundamental responsibility to serve residents.

“Despite challenges, states have momentum and are moving forward in a clear direction. Officers are using the DOJ Final Rule extension to improve governance, embed accessibility early into development cycles and build more sustainable, proactive remediation and reporting processes,” the survey reads. “As states continue refining their programs, accessibility officers will remain critical in shaping digital equity, guiding the long-term evolution of accessible governments and societies.”